- From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 10:00:34 +0100 (BST)
- To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 9 May 1996, MegaZone wrote: > > And using '3.2' helps put the nail in the coffin of the long defunct 3.0 > proposal. 3.0 had some good stuff - it also had some poorly thought out > schemes, and it was unweildy. 3.2 covers bits of 3.0 that are in use, > and provides an easy point to work from in introducing more. > Well as far as I am concerned it doesn't because the functionality of 3.0 is much greater than 3.2, and at least one browser (arena) supports much of the functionality that I require (mostly <math>). So as far as I am concerned you can forget 3.2, I will stick to 3.0. There is a fundamental divergance here between the scientific and technical world, which you are not interested in, and the commercial world which I am not interested in. Unfortunately your world has money, and mine doesn't. So I guess you win. Unless there are enough people with the knowledge and the time to develop specs and browsers for scientific and technical use only. Dave Carter
Received on Thursday, 9 May 1996 05:00:44 UTC